Factores relevantes para aumentar la precisión, la viabilidad y el éxito de los sistemas de evaluación del desempeño laboral

  1. María Dolores Díaz Cabrera
  2. Estefanía Hernández Fernaud
  3. María Rosa Isla Díaz
  4. Naira Delgado Rodríguez
  5. Luis Fernando Díaz Vilela
  6. Christian Rosales Sánchez
Papeles del psicólogo

ISSN: 0214-7823 1886-1415

Year of publication: 2014

Issue Title: La psicología del trabajo y las organizaciones en tiempos de crisis económica (2ª parte)

Volume: 35

Issue: 2

Pages: 115-121

Type: Article

More publications in: Papeles del psicólogo


Cited by

  • Dialnet Métricas Cited by: 6 (18-02-2024)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2014
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.206
  • Best Quartile: Q4
  • Area: Psychology (miscellaneous) Quartile: Q4 Rank in area: 172/246

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2014
  • Journal Impact: 0.870
  • Field: PSICOLOGÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 7/109


  • Social Sciences: B

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2014
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.9
  • Area: Psychology (all) Percentile: 32


The situation of economic crisis in Spain has motivated an increasing interest in employee performance evaluation in organizations. On the other hand, it is also producing greater resistance to this evaluation on the part of appraisees, who regard these processes with suspicion and concern in these times of economic difficulties. Therefore, in economic situations like the current one, it is very important to develop assessment scales that facilitate the effectiveness, credibility and success of these systems. The general goal of this work is to provide results that can help evaluation systems to be positively valued by organizations as well as by their members. For this it is necessary that: (a) the response scales used offer precise and reliable data; and (b) the procedures applied to assess performance are perceived as fair and reliable by the participants

Bibliographic References

  • Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance manegement. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
  • Bernardin, H.J., Cooke, D.K., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and Agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 232-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.232
  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. En N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321- 352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800206
  • Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins G. H. (1994). Performance appraisal: alternative perspectives. South-Western, Cincinnati: OH.
  • Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.83.4.615
  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A MetaAnalytic Review of 25 years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Colon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the Millennium, a Decade Later: A Meta-Analytic Test of Social Exchange and Affect-Based Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
  • Díaz-Cabrera, D., Díaz-Vilela, L., Delgado, N., Isla-Díaz, R., Rosales-Sánchez, Ch. y Hernández-Fernaud, E. (2013). Comportamiento de las distribuciones de medidas del de- sempeño en función del tipo de escala utilizada. Trabajo presentado en el XIII Congreso de Metodología de las Cien- cias Sociales y de la Salud (AEMCCO), La Laguna, España.
  • Díaz-Cabrera, D., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Rosales-Sánchez, Ch., Isla, R. y Díaz-Vilela, L. (en revisión). Aceptación y jus- ticia percibida de la evaluación del desempeño: análisis de variables predictoras.
  • Díaz-Vilela, L., Delgado, N., Isla-Díaz, R., Díaz-Cabrera, D. & Hernández-Fernaud, E. (under review). Relationships between contextual and task performance and interrater agreement: Why there are none?.
  • Díaz-Vilela, L., Díaz-Cabrera, D., Isla-Díaz, R., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Rosales-Sánchez, Ch. & Delgado, N. (2013). Development of a computer based task performance scale for clerical workers in a Public Administration. 16th Congress of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Münster, Germany.
  • Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
  • Farr, J. L & Jacobs, R. (2006). Trust us: New perspectives on performance appraisal. En W. Bennett, C. Lance & D. Woehr (Eds.), Performance Measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 321-337). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA, Publishers.
  • Fletcher, C. (2002). Appraisal: An individual psychological perspective. En S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 115-136). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Folger, R., Konovsky, M., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. En B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 14 (pp. 127-148). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  • Giles, W. F., & Mossholder, K. W. (1990). Employee reactions to contextual and session components of performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 371-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.75.4.371
  • Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric method. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hernández Fernaud, E., Díaz-Vilela, L., Isla-Díaz, R., Delgado, N., Rosales-Sánchez, Ch. y Díaz-Cabrera, D. (2013). Efecto del tipo de escala de medida en la evaluación del desempeño en estudiantes universitarios. Trabajo presentado en el XIII Congreso de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud (AEMCCO), La Laguna, España.
  • Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 708-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.708
  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881-905. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005
  • Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and good-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
  • Poropat, A. E. (2002). New Models of Work Performance and Their Implications for Employment Relations. En P. Ross, M. Lyons, C. Allan & K. Townsend (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association. Sydney: International Employment Relations Association (IERA).
  • Salgado, J. F. y Cabal, A. L. (2011). Evaluación del desempeño en la Administración Pública del Principado de Asturias: Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 27(2), 75-91.
  • Salleh, M., Amin, A., Muda, S., & Halim, M. A. S. A. (2013). Fairness of performance appraisal and organizational commitment. Asian Social Science, 9(2), 121-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n2p121
  • Smith, P. (1976). Behavior, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. En M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 745-775). Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co.
  • Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2001). Relationships between attitudes toward organizations and performance appraisal systems and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 226-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00176
  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216-226. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468- 2389.00151
  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Job performance: Assessment issues in personnel selection. En A. Evers, N. Anderson & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection, (pp. 354-375). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.